----

##  Title II Requirements for Schools, Colleges, and Departments of                 Education. ERIC Digest.                                                      

The Higher Education Act (HEA) was one of President Lyndon                      Johnson's "Great Society" programs designed to provide financial                support for low-income youth to pursue postsecondary education.  The            HEA, like many large federal programs, is periodically examined by              Congress and updated through amendments.  This process is called                reauthorization and occurs approximately every five years.  In 1996             Congress began one of these reviews, which culminated in November               1998 with President Clinton signing the Higher Education Amendments             of 1998 (P.L. 105-422). 
During the review of HEA, concern about               the quality of teacher education emerged (Earley, 2000).  Although              Federal programs to strengthen the teaching force through teacher               preparation and professional development grants existed for over 15             years in Title V of HEA, Congress used the 1996-1998 amendment                  process as an opportunity to make major revisions in that portion of            the law.  This was done by abolishing the Title V programs and                  creating a new Teacher Quality section in HEA known as Title II. The            new Title II had two purposes: Sections 202-205 established grant               programs for partnerships between K-12 schools and institutions of              higher education and for states to improve teacher quality, while               sections 206, 207, and 208 laid out new accountability requirements             for states and institutions that prepare teachers (Higher Education             Amendments, 1998).  It is the accountability provisions in Sections             207 and 208 that are the focus of this digest. INFLUENCING THE                POLICY AGENDALegislative decisions do not occur in a vacuum, and            often events that influence lawmakers are external to the formal                policy making process (Kingdon, 1995).  In the case of the Title II             accountability provisions, a catalyst that brought focus to teacher             education was the 1996 release of What Matters Most: Teaching for               America's Future by the National Commission on Teaching and                     America's Future (NCTAF). This report presented a framework for                 reforming teacher education. The National Commission's                          recommendations stressed actions that should be taken by                        institutions of higher education, state teacher licensing agencies,             and local schools; however, members of Congress felt national                   directives also were necessary (Earley, 2000; Miller 2001). 
The               high visibility given to What Matters Most in the press led to some             vocal opposition to teacher education (Earley, 2000).  This                     opposition came primarily from groups and individuals who supported             elimination of teacher licensure and endorsed a free-market approach            to teacher recruitment and hiring (Ballou & Pordgursky, 1997). Thus,            as Congress considered how to revise HEA, the information lawmakers             heard about teacher education could be classified into three general            messages: 
*    The current preparation of teachers is                         inadequate; 
*    Teacher education should be guided by strong                 standards (as proposed by NCTAF); and 
*    Formal teacher                     education is unnecessary, as characterized by NCTAF                             critics. 
Because the federal government is limited in its ability             to impose college-level curriculum or to set state licensure                    standards for educators, the Congress focused on the first message.             It addressed perceived deficiencies in teacher preparation by                   mandating through Title II that any institutions preparing teachers             that receive funds through HEA for any purpose, and any states that             receive HEA monies submit to Congress annual reports on their                   efforts to improve the quality of teaching.  Sections 207 and 208 of            the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 detail these reporting                  requirements. HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTSThe                  provisions in Title II, Sec. 207 and Sec. 208 are designed to gather            information on, and rank within states, institutions that prepare               teachers.  As Miller (2001) points out, the reasoning behind these              provisions is to urge college and university presidents to direct               energy and resources toward improving the teacher education programs            on their campuses. Consequently, each year that the law is in                   effect, colleges and universities must report the following                     information to their state: 
*    The pass rates of students who               have completed a teacher education program on each of the state's               licensure examinations. (Examinations taken by fewer than 10                    students are included only in aggregated data in order to protect               public disclosure of exam results when only a few students take the             exam each year.) 
* The number of students enrolled in teacher                 education programs. 
*  The number of hours each teacher education             student is required to complete in practice teaching and the                    faculty-student ratio in this part of the program. 
*    Whether or            not the college or university's teacher education program is                    approved or accredited by the state. 
*    Whether or not the state            has identified the institution's teacher education program as                   low-performing.  In addition, the law specifies that institutions               may submit supplemental information about their program, such as                characteristics of students they enroll, the community they serve,              the institution's mission, and the like.  The optional supplemental             information may be used to present a broader institutional picture              than that given by exam pass rates and other quantitative data.                 Colleges and universities must also make this information available             to the public, potential students, and prospective employers of                 their teacher education graduates (Higher Education Amendments,                 1998). 
Strong sanctions are associated with Title II. Institutions            that do not submit reports or intentionally provide inaccurate                  information could be fined $25,000.  Moreover, each state is                    required by law to develop criteria to flag low-performing colleges             and universities. These criteria may or may not include test scores,            but once in place, if an institution is identified as low-performing            and has not improved after receiving technical assistance from the              state, it may lose eligibility to receive federal grants to support             educator professional development and may not enroll a student in               its teacher education program who receives student financial aid                under Title IV of HEA. STATE REQUIREMENTSStates need to                   compile all data submitted by colleges and universities.  In                    addition, the state is expected to: 
*   Describe its licensure                requirements and all assessments that are used as part of the                   teacher credentialing process. 
*    Explain the extent to which               there is alignment between the teacher education licensure                      requirements and K-12 content standards. 
*    Report the                      qualifying scores and percentage of candidates who pass each teacher            licensure exam for each program in the state.  (This provision was              subsequently modified by the U.S. Department of Education to require            that institutional comparisons within states be done by "adjusted               quartiles.") (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). 
*    The number            of licensure waivers granted by the state disaggregated by teaching             subject and by high- and low-poverty school districts. 
*    A                 description of any alternative routes to teaching in the state and              the percentage of students in these programs who pass the licensure             exams. 
*    The criteria used to approve a teacher education                  program unit. 
*    Information about any and all subject matter               examinations teachers or future teachers must take.  Beginning in               2001 and each year thereafter this information must be reported to              the U.S. Department of Education to be used by the Secretary of                 Education in an annual report to the Congress on teacher                        quality. IMPLEMENTING TITLE IITitle II states that the                    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the U.S.                 Department of Education must establish a reporting system to comply             with an implementation time line specified by law.  Since Title II              requires consultation with states and institutions of higher                    education in developing compliance guidelines, a consultative                   committee of individuals from states, institutions of higher                    education, and the policy community was appointed to help NCES                  construct a reporting system (Higher Education Act, 1998; U.S.                  Department of Education, 2000).  Many difficult questions arose:                What is the appropriate definition of a teacher education graduate              or program completer? Should the definition of faculty include only             campus-based personnel or also include clinical faculty employed                primarily at the school site?  Is information on "student teaching"             or on all clinical experiences within a future teacher's program to             be included?  Is there a common definition for an alternate route to            teaching?  What constitutes a licensure waiver?  How will                       institutions in states that do not use a standardized assessment                instrument for licensure be ranked?  How will the information be                made public by colleges and universities, the state, and the Federal            government? Struggling with these questions as well as the task of              creating a common reporting format for licensure exam scores proved             to be significantly more complex than anticipated, and the first                Title II reporting deadlines were adjusted, with Congressional                  approval, to April 2001 for institutions of higher education and                October 2001 for states. 
Reporting guidelines for use by                      institutions and states covered under HEA, Title II, were published             in May 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 2000), yet some issues               had not been fully resolved.  What will be the cost to institutions             and states to comply with this law? Do the Title II reporting                   guidelines go beyond or reinterpret provisions in Sec. 207 and Sec.             208?  Inasmuch as Title II data are not to be used for cross-state              comparisons (U.S. Department of Education, 2000), will the data                 available to the Secretary of Education in October 2001 provide                 useful information for policymakers? Implementation of Title II, the            burden on institutions and states, and the quality of the data the              reports produce are being carefully monitored by the                            Congress (Miller, 2001). However, there will be limited opportunity             for significant changes in the Title II requirements until the next             reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2003 or                          2004. REFERENCESBallou, D. & Pordgursky, M. (1997).  Reforming            teacher recruitment: A critical appraisal of the recommendations of             the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.                       Government Union Review, 17(1), 1-51. 
Earley, P.M. (January and               March 2000).  Finding the culprit: Federal policy and teacher                   education. Educational Policy, 14(1), 25-39. 
Higher Education                 Reauthorization Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-244. [On-line]                     Available: http://thomas.loc.gov/                                               cgi?bin/bdquery/D?d105:1:./temp/~bdn75F::|/bss/d105query.html                   
Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public                         Policies (2nd Edition).  Boston: Little Brown. 
Miller, G. (2001).             Preparing the next generation of teachers: Title II of the Higher               Education Act. Policy Perspectives, 2(5), 1-4. 
National Commission            on Teaching and America's Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching            for America's future.  New York: Columbia University Press. 
U.S.              Department of Education, National Center for Education                          Statistics (2000).  Reference and reporting guide for preparing                 state and institutional reports on the quality of teacher                       preparation: Title II, Higher Education Act, NCES 2000-089.                     Washington, DC. 
----- 
This project has been funded at least in              part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education,                  Office of Educational Research and Improvement, under contract                  number ED-99-COO-0007.  The content of this publication does not                necessarily reflect the views of or policies of the U.S. Department             of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products,              or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.                   **Title:** Title II Requirements for Schools, Colleges, and Departments of                 Education. ERIC Digest.                                                      **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, American                  Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1307 New York Ave.,              N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005-4701. Tel: 202-293-2450; Tel:             800-822-9229 (Toll Free); e-mail: [email protected]. For full text:               http://www.ericsp.org.                                                       **Descriptors:**  Accountability, Educational Quality, Elementary Secondary                      Education, Higher Education,  Preservice Teacher Education, Schools             of Education,  Teacher Certification,  Teacher Competencies                  **Identifiers:**  Elementary Secondary Education Act Title II, ERIC Digests                   
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]